“When the RMP came along, a whole bunch of documents became identifiable and more available,” said Jeff Burgess, a longtime conservation advocate for the SPRNCA. “And as we went through this stuff, it was like, wow, they were doing a lot of stuff that basically only the permittees knew about. They were renewing the grazing after the state leases expired. They were implementing management plans without NEPA.” 

Dean Bibles, the BLM State Director during the creation of the SPRNCA, submitted a public comment criticizing the BLM for proposing to reauthorize grazing in the preserve.

“Frankly, there is no scientific or other common sense reason to allow privately owned livestock in the area…” wrote Bibles in his comment. “I ask the BLM to seriously consider the long-term problems you will create by opening this area to grazing and the fact that it is clearly contrary to the intention of the management area.” 

Elizabeth Makings, the Collections Manager at ASU’s Herbarium, was another one of the public commenters. She felt like the BLM failed to adequately account for the public’s concerns over grazing in their final decision.

“If you put the yays on one side and the nays on the other, there’d be a stack like four times as high,” said Makings. “So I don’t feel like it’s truly transparent. I read a lot of letters, and I didn’t read a lot that said we should just graze the hell out of the SPRNCA.” 

When the final RMP was released in 2019, the BLM chose to go with Alternative A- no changes to grazing in the SPRNCA. They hadn’t quite gotten their way. Grazing was not going to be increased by 300%, but it would be reauthorized on the four current allotments. 

This did not go over well with a lot of people, including with environmental groups who were ready to take the BLM to court over the final plan. In 2020, the BLM found itself the defendant in two lawsuits brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, Western Watersheds Project and the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter.

The Lawsuits

The two lawsuits filed against the BLM in 2020 challenged the BLM’s management of the SPRNCA based on two different laws- the SPRNCA’s enabling legislation and the Endangered Species Act. 

The first lawsuit was brought by all three organizations. It claimed that the BLM was violating the SPRNCA’s enabling legislation by reauthorizing grazing as part of the 2019 RMP. The argument in this case was pretty simple. It pointed to the science showing that livestock grazing and riparian conservation weren’t compatible in the San Pedro’s riparian ecosystem to make the case that the BLM was violating its mandate to “conserve, protect, and enhance the riparian area.”

“If you look at the proclamation that created the SPRNCA, it says you can only allow livestock grazing if you can show that it conserves, protects and enhances those natural resources,” Cyndi Tuell, the southwest programs director for Western Watersheds Project. “And there’s no way to show that because it doesn’t.” 

The first lawsuit, the one about the SPRNCA’s enabling legislation settled under these terms: the BLM was going to do an Environmental Assessment of grazing’s impacts on the ecosystem and produce a Biological Opinion within eight months of the settlement. The plaintiffs essentially asked that the BLM reevaluate grazing in the SPRNCA. 

Cyndi Tuell, the Southwest programs director for Western Watersheds Project, said that they believed the science would make it so obvious to the BLM that cows did not belong in the SPRNCA that they would have to remove them under the settlement terms. 

“It doesn’t make any sense,” said Tuell. “It seems so obvious to almost everyone else that this is where cows don’t belong. This is where cows legally don’t belong. The impacts to the threatened and endangered species are significant, ongoing and well documented. So we cannot figure out what they’re thinking.”

The second lawsuit, the one about the Endangered Species Act, settled under these terms: the Center for Biological Diversity would document and report trespass cows in the SPRNCA and the BLM would report back to them every six months with what they were doing to remove the trespass cattle. Over 80 official trespass cattle complaints have been sent to the BLM since the settlement went into effect. 

Silver is not happy with the way the BLM has handled these complaints. He says that he rarely even receives an acknowledgement of their receipt. 

“Occasionally Colleen Dingman sends a note and says we acknowledge receipt of your complaint, which is part of the settlement, but mostly they just forward it to the not read trash bin,” said Silver. 

In recent months, the BLM has completed the tasks it was bound to do under the settlements and the environmental groups still aren’t happy. Further legal actions are already being taken as a result of the settlements by both the Center for Biological Diversity and Western Watersheds Project.

Silver said it’s because the legal arguments get into the weeds pretty quickly. He said there are multiple legal avenues where they’re vulnerable, but it can also be hard to pin them down in these areas. 

“It’s undeniable that they have a duty to conserve, but then it’s questionable on what that means,” said Silver. “So if they say, well, we’re buying fencing and we intend to fix our fences sometime in the next year, then technically they’re doing something. So it’s hard to pin them down.” 

Silver is right, it can be particularly difficult to pin government agencies down for breaking the law. Agencies were created to regulate in areas where Congress and the Courts don’t have expertise. Their management decisions are always going to be upheld in court as long as they don’t meet the elusive standard of “arbitrary and capricious” behavior. 

Basically, courts will uphold agency’s decisions as long as they are not blatantly outrageous. However, Tuell thinks that in this instance, the BLM’s behavior is rising to the standard of “arbitrary and capricious.” 

“It’s an arbitrary and capricious decision,” said Tuell. “They didn’t use their own data to base their decisions on.”

Tuell offered a different explanation for the settlements. She said they settled for efficiency. Litigation can take years to make its way through the courts, and the groups believed that the science was indisputable enough that if the BLM agreed to reevaluate grazing, they’d be forced to remove cattle from the SPRNCA. But this hasn’t been the result of the settlements.

As part of the lawsuit for the first settlement, the BLM agreed to reevaluate grazing on the four allotments in the SPRNCA. On Dec. 21st, 2022 they released their proposed plans to reauthorize all four leases. On April 7th, 2023, they finalized their decision to reauthorize the permits. 

Western Watersheds Project submitted a protest for their proposed decision and plans to appeal their final decision. 

“We cannot figure out what they’re thinking,” said Tuell. “And we’re just pulling our hair out over here going, what else do we need to show you? There’s science specific to this spot on the planet that shows cows are bad for it. There’s a legal requirement that you can’t allow cows if they’re bad for the spot, and they did it anyway. It makes no sense.” 

After the final decision was released to reauthorize grazing on all four allotments, Western Watersheds Project released the following statement:

“Despite the abundant scientific evidence demonstrating livestock grazing is fundamentally incompatible with the protection of riparian areas in the arid Southwest, the Bureau had newly authorized grazing on the four livestock allotments, essentially sacrificing the irreplaceable values of the Conservation Area for the benefit of four small ranches.” 

Tuell pointed out that the requirements detailed in the lease renewals show that the BLM knows cows are negatively impacting the land. The BLM is implementing a 50% reduction in livestock on each of the leases, and claims they will be monitoring monthly for compliance with the land health standards. Tuell doubts the BLM will do the monitoring they promised in the lease renewals. 

Tuell says that the new requirements to reduce livestock based on land health evaluations prove their point that cows are bad for the land. She also offered criticism of the new vegetative treatments being used on the allotments to restore grasslands and control the mesquite invasion. She wants to know why they are implementing these expensive vegetative treatments when removing cows would solve the problem in the first place. 

Robin Silver and the Center for Biological Diversity also aren’t happy with the BLM’s final decision to reauthorize grazing. The decision will likely produce two more lawsuits from the Center. 

The BLM’s final decision to reauthorize grazing on the allotments wasn’t the conclusion of the settlement. They’ve asked for a month-long extension to the settlement period, but Silver says they can expect a lawsuit on their desk the day after the settlement period is officially over.

When the BLM announced on April 7th that they would be reauthorizing grazing on all four allotments, the Center for Biological Diversity filed two more lawsuits as a result. The lawsuits specifically target the lease renewal for the Bobacomari allotment and allege that the BLM is violating the Endangered Species Act by reauthorizing grazing. 

A new survey from the Center shows that the vegetative understory in this section of the SPRNCA has been significantly damaged by grazing. The Center alleges the reduced vegetation in the SPRNCA’s understory is destroying crucial habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo and the northern Mexican Gartersnake. Silver said that vegetation surveys like this have led to significant legal victories for them in the past.

The second settlement with the Center has already produced an NOI. On March, 21st sent an NOI to the BLM over its violations of the Endangered Species Act. 

Initially, the NOI resulted in negotiations between the two parties, but now Silver is saying the negotiations are over.

“There’s nothing in the report," said Silver. "They basically just talk to local ranchers, and then we still see cows. So, obviously we don’t trust them."

He thinks that conducting round-ups won’t solve the problem if the BLM won’t do its job to maintain the SPRNCA’s boundary fences. He noted that 59 cows were spotted in the same location between the San Pedro House and the Hereford Bridge that the BLM had allegedly conducted a round-up in only weeks earlier. 

The settlements haven’t worked. The BLM has reauthorized grazing in the SPRCA after conducting an Environmental Assessment of its impacts and more legal actions are being taken. Western Watersheds Project is appealing their decision to reauthorize grazing on all four allotments which could become another lawsuit if the BLM doesn't reverse its course after the appeal. And dbefore the summer is over, the Center for Biological Diversity will most likely have brought three more lawsuits against the BLM.